It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Crazy am I to think I know where MH370 is? Jeff Wise in NY Magazine

page: 10
58
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   
will not allow itself to be pasted.

Here it is....

The Link




posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
will not allow itself to be pasted.

Here it is....

The Link


Thank you.




posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
The fake search is coming to an end.

It served it's purpose, which never had ANYTHING to do with actually finding MH370 in the first place.

www.aljazeera.com...

Seems the attention span of ATS has already moved on.

At least until the next Malaysian airliner fails to reach it's destination.








posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

What purpose did it serve, why, and with whom?



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Psynic

What purpose did it serve, why, and with whom?



Purpose? Cover-up of a hijacking.

Why? Protect the industry, bury the intentions of the hijacking, conceal the shooting down of an airliner.

Whom? Those that profit from the Aviation and related industries.

To name a few.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Psynic

What purpose did it serve, why, and with whom?



Purpose? Cover-up of a hijacking.

Why? Protect the industry, bury the intentions of the hijacking, conceal the shooting down of an airliner.

Whom? Those that profit from the Aviation and related industries.

To name a few.



No, no, and no.

Cover-up a hijacking? WHY? I thought the evil powers that be are ALWAYS looking for an excuse to go to war. Wouldn't a hijacking be the perfect reason?

Protect the industry? HOW, exactly? What, like people are going to stop flying? Refresh my memory, did 9/11 at all slow down the airline industry? Of course not.

As to the profit thing...ridiculous. I would fly tomorrow and so would anyone else who needs to get somewhere. One hijacking has not and will not change that fact.

Your theory is weak sauce. Just saying...



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I just want to clarify one of my issues with this whole "protect the airlines by covering up a hijacking or whatever" idea. Let me ask you this: How in the world would the airline be protected by looking incompetent? I mean really, which does more harm to the industry? A-being helpless in the face of an armed crew of hijackers? or B-looking like you are literally too stupid to successfully fly planes? I am going with B, which is what this frankly looks like.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Psynic

What purpose did it serve, why, and with whom?



Purpose? Cover-up of a hijacking.

Why? Protect the industry, bury the intentions of the hijacking, conceal the shooting down of an airliner.

Whom? Those that profit from the Aviation and related industries.

To name a few.



Refresh my memory, did 9/11 at all slow down the airline industry? Of course not.



Your memory isn't very good.

Exactly how many times have you taken off your shoes and walked through the X-Ray machine?







posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Psynic

What purpose did it serve, why, and with whom?



Purpose? Cover-up of a hijacking.

Why? Protect the industry, bury the intentions of the hijacking, conceal the shooting down of an airliner.

Whom? Those that profit from the Aviation and related industries.

To name a few.



Refresh my memory, did 9/11 at all slow down the airline industry? Of course not.



Your memory isn't very good.

Exactly how many times have you taken off your shoes and walked through the X-Ray machine?






My memory is better than your technique, to be fair. That has nothing to do with business or hurting the industry. Now you are moving the goal posts.
edit on 5-3-2015 by jaffo because: Content



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum




I also noticed another story saying the plane went to Antartica, seriously


Frankly, OP story is harder to explain. How would this plane fly unnoticed through Jammu and Kashmir region ?
You would need include in this conspiracy not only Russia and Kazakhstan, but also Pakistan, India and China lol

At least for Antarctica only hidden Nazi base is involved



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

Which isn't much more than you were doing before. It didn't slow down the airlines much though. They've never covered up a hijacking before. And it's never slowed down the airlines before after a hijacking.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Here's a fairly objective discussion on the changes to the airline industry since 9/11.

www.cfr.org...

If after these measures hijackers can STILL take an airplane AT WILL, what's left???

Strip naked! Interrogations? Endoscopy?

Nah, of course not. There's nothing left to do BUT deny. Nothing.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

The security measures in place are similar to the measures in place since 1973. They've always been able to take planes at will, even after those measures were put in place.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: Zcustosmorum




I also noticed another story saying the plane went to Antartica, seriously


Frankly, OP story is harder to explain. How would this plane fly unnoticed through Jammu and Kashmir region ?
You would need include in this conspiracy not only Russia and Kazakhstan, but also Pakistan, India and China lol

At least for Antarctica only hidden Nazi base is involved


Through "Jammu and Kashmir"? No where near the flightpath.

Take a look at the map I posted a few pages back.

i.imgur.com...



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic
Here's a fairly objective discussion on the changes to the airline industry since 9/11.

www.cfr.org...

If after these measures hijackers can STILL take an airplane AT WILL, what's left???

Strip naked! Interrogations? Endoscopy?

Nah, of course not. There's nothing left to do BUT deny. Nothing.




You keep trying to move the goalposts, floundering about wildly and backing off from every claim you make as soon as it is debunked. Do you actually believe any of this or are you just trolling? Because there is no consistency of belief visible to me in your posts...



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic




Purpose? Cover-up of a hijacking.

The issue I have with this theory is not one nation is pointing the finger. Considering the nations involved I don't see one nation remaining quiet in order to protect another nation with whom they don't have good relations with.




originally posted by: Psynic
Why? Protect the industry, bury the intentions of the hijacking, conceal the shooting down of an airliner.

We have no evidence the plane was shot down. Secondly other commercial aircraft have been shot down over the years, and like the issue I pointed out above, you are not going to have all nations suddenly pulling the hear, speak see no evil line.

Commercial airlines are not going anywhere anytime soon so there really is nothing to protect the industry from. You are going to have accidents as well as intentional incidents. It would actually be in the airlines best interest to disclose a high jacking rather than try to cover it up. I say this because generally speaking government is responsible for airport security, which includes security screening. I would wager we would see airlines coming forward about a high jacking while at the same time reminding people they have nothing to do with airport security.

IF, and its a big if, the airline were somehow involved we again run into the problem of non friendly nations pointing out the lies.





originally posted by: Psynic
Whom? Those that profit from the Aviation and related industries.

To name a few.


Aside from an insurance claim by the airline and next of kin of any passengers, I don't see anyone else profiting from it.

I am not knocking your theory and it certainly could be plausible however I just don't see how it could work.


There are a few questions about the incident that fell of the face of the earth though. When this incident started 2 unusual events occurred between China and the US. When the search got underway the Chinese government suggested a possible location of the aircraft and cited debris in the area. The problem was the location was along the route heading to China and not into the Indian ocean.

Shortly after that announcement a US military PIO was asked about the comments from China, to which he replied the Chinese "lead" was nothing more then a red herring.

Question #1 - Why would china go down that road?
and
question #2 - If it was a red herring what information did the military PIO have to reach that conclusion.

Finally we have the mystery of the passengers who had stolen passports who were supposedly Iranian intelligence agents (depending on what media coverage you watch anyways).

Finally this is not the first time, contrary to media accounts, where a commercial jetliner has dropped off the face of the earth. A similar incident occurred on the African continent some time (decade +) back. A commercial jetliner was "stolen" and a subsequent search conducted by African, Us and European nations never located the aircraft.
edit on 5-3-2015 by Xcathdra because: Lysdexic



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Psynic




Purpose? Cover-up of a hijacking.

The issue I have with this theory is not one nation is pointing the finger. Considering the nations involved I don't see one nation remaining quiet in order to protect another nation with whom they don't have good relations with.





I would like to respond to all of your points but can't handle them as an avalanche.

Firstly, which do you consider the "nations involved"?

There are only two that matter, NATO and BRICS.

I'm not aware of a lot of Hijackings in the post 9/11 era and what happened in the previous millennium is really irrelevant.

I don't know what you mean by "if the airlines are involved".

Malaysia Airlines IS the Malaysian Government.

The anecdote you mention about China reporting flotsam and an American PIO response has no bearing on any claims I made and adds to the unwieldiness of my response.

I will endeavour to address any of your concerns but in the interest of clarity, please be specific.

Thanks



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Psynic




Purpose? Cover-up of a hijacking.

The issue I have with this theory is not one nation is pointing the finger. Considering the nations involved I don't see one nation remaining quiet in order to protect another nation with whom they don't have good relations with.





I would like to respond to all of your points but can't handle them as an avalanche.

Firstly, which do you consider the "nations involved"?

There are only two that matter, NATO and BRICS.

I'm not aware of a lot of Hijackings in the post 9/11 era and what happened in the previous millennium is really irrelevant.

I don't know what you mean by "if the airlines are involved".

Malaysia Airlines IS the Malaysian Government.

The anecdote you mention about China reporting flotsam and an American PIO response has no bearing on any claims I made and adds to the unwieldiness of my response.

I will endeavour to address any of your concerns but in the interest of clarity, please be specific.

Thanks







Oh stop it. We have been VERY specific. You're clearly trolling and I am done playing this game.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

I wasn't looking at your path, instead I was looking into original article pic 21 with the text





Using the BTO data set alone, I was able to chart the plane’s speed and general path, which happened to fall along national borders.Fig. 21 Flying along borders, a military navigator told me, is a good way to avoid being spotted on radar.


And caption


Fig. 21. In particular, the flight path skirts the border of China and just misses the disputed and much-watched India-Pakistan border.


I don't agree with the caption and what some military navigator told him is dubious in this case. That particular path is coming along one of the most watched disputed borders on Earth.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic
I would like to respond to all of your points but can't handle them as an avalanche.

its not an avalanche. It addressed some of the possibilities you raised albeit on the other side of the fence.




originally posted by: Psynic
Firstly, which do you consider the "nations involved"?

There are only two that matter, NATO and BRICS.

Well, for starters NATO and BRICS are not nations. They are a military alliance and an economic alliance.


The Nations involved are:
Specifically the 15 nations who lost nationals on the flight.
The country where the flight originated from.
The country where the flight was suppose to land.
The country where the airline is based out of.
The country who manufactured the aircraft.

that's off the top of my head and is based on international law / treaties concerning air disasters.

NATO nor BRICS have anything to do with any of this.




originally posted by: Psynic
I'm not aware of a lot of Hijackings in the post 9/11 era and what happened in the previous millennium is really irrelevant.

2001 - Russia - Turkey - Saudi Arabia - A Vnukovo Airlines Tu-154 flying from Istanbul to Moscow.
2001 - Hijackings occurring on 9/11
2006 - Turkey-Italy - Turkish airlines flight 1476
2007 - Turkey - MD-80 jet highjacked
2008 - Sunair - Sudan
2008 - Eagle Airways flight 2279
2009 - CanJet flight 918
2009 - AeroMexico flight 576
2011 - Turkish airlines flight 1754
2011 - Alitalia flight 329
2012 - Tianjin Airways flight GS7554
2014 - Pegasus airlines Flight 751
2014 - Ethiopian flight 702

etc etc etc .....




originally posted by: Psynic
I don't know what you mean by "if the airlines are involved".


In trying to cover up a high jacking / preventable incidents. There was illegal cargo on the aircraft which apparently was a somewhat common practice for this airline. (I think lithium batteries).




originally posted by: Psynic
Malaysia Airlines IS the Malaysian Government.

No Malaysia Airlines is a private company who happens to be Malaysia's Flag Carrier. All that means is the airline operates out of that country and enjoys preferential treatment from the government for that action. The term holds for all airlines / all nations.




originally posted by: Psynic
The anecdote you mention about China reporting flotsam and an American PIO response has no bearing on any claims I made and adds to the unwieldiness of my response.

Considering I stated I had questions involving the last info in my post it has bearing on the conversation in General. If you read my post in its entirety you would have seen that part.




originally posted by: Psynic
I will endeavour to address any of your concerns but in the interest of clarity, please be specific.

Thanks


Im good - thanks.






edit on 5-3-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join